House of Lords Reform

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend’s suggestions seem to arouse laughter on the other side. I strongly agree with him and suspect that many of the British people agree that this House needs refreshing from time to time. I will not get hung up on any number between 600 and 650. The membership should be appropriate to enable the House of Lords to carry out its role in a way that reflects that role and the primacy of the House of Commons as the elected Chamber.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why dedicated, public-spirited, widely respected people of high integrity should continue to serve on the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which is independent? The Prime Minister, Mr Johnson, seems determined to treat its recommendations with complete contempt.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord opposite’s assertion, which seems one of the most sweeping examples of the generalisation of a particular that I have ever heard. He may have a case in mind. The correspondence on that case has been published with proper transparency, and for my part I welcome the presence of that new Peer in this House.

Standards in Public Life Report

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Thursday 17th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life Standards Matter 2: Committee Findings, published on 14 June.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, we are very grateful for the work undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and his committee. It has published an interim report, and the Government will respond formally to its final recommendations when they are published in the autumn. However, in the meantime we will carefully consider its interim findings, along with those of the independent review of supply chain finance, which is due to report to the Prime Minister by the end of June.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the committee and its seven principles of public life are the moral compass for politics and government. This report shows how far the Johnson Administration are failing to meet these standards. Even Dominic Cummings now seems to agree with this. The Ministerial Code, ministerial interests, business and public appointments and lobbying rules are all identified in this report as needing “significant reform”. Given that the public perception of excessive ministerial pressure for control, corruption and conformity is hugely damaging to our democracy, will the Minister now give the House a firm undertaking that the report’s recommendations will be acted on as a matter of extreme urgency?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have already indicated to the House that the Government will study very carefully the interim findings of this report. I underline what I say every time I come to this Dispatch Box: I, and indeed the whole Government, attach the highest importance to high standards of probity in public life.

Ministerial Code and Register of Ministers’ Interests

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True)]

My Lords, I would never offer any reproach to the noble Baroness, for whom I have the highest respect. The only thing I would reproach her with is joining the wrong party—she would be an adornment to any party.

I am tempted to say that I could not possibly add anything to what was said by my right honourable friend the Paymaster-General, but I will say that of course standards in public life are essential and I think that every Member of your Lordships’ House and, indeed, of the Government aspire to them. I feel privileged to be a member of a Government who are led by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister who in his short premiership has led the country through Brexit and the Covid crisis with enormous distinction. On the publication of the register of Ministers’ interests, which was the substantive question the noble Baroness asked, the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, answered on this point to PACAC, but I can inform the House that he hopes that it will be published very shortly—that is, by the end of the month.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Government have been spending large sums of taxpayers’ money trying to stop the courts establishing whether the so-called Covid contracts were awarded incompetently or corruptly. I make no comment on the legal proceedings, but whatever the merits of the case, this attempt at a cover-up is clearly in breach of the Ministerial Code, the Nolan principles, to which it refers, and perhaps even of the Civil Service Code. I have a simple question: who authorised this expenditure? Was it Ministers or civil servants?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord does not give due weight to some of the things that were being said by spokesmen for his party last year about the need to make every effort to get those vital items of PPE for our country. Some 11,000 million items of PPE have been distributed, and the concerns that have been expressed attach to only 0.5% of the goods.

Size of the House of Lords

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I strongly endorse the views of the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Hunt, and indeed those of the Lord Speaker. Is it not now obvious that Mr Johnson is seeking to deliberately damage the reputation of the House to reduce our influence? Will the Government now accept the recommendations of the Burns committee, and the view of the large majority of the House, and take the lead in legislating to end the 20 year-old temporary hereditary Peers by-election anomaly? This is way past its sell-by date.

[Lord True (Con)]

No, my Lords, for the reason I have just given. The noble Lord speaks with the strength of 86 Liberal Democrat Peers behind him. At the rate of retirement we have seen recently, it would be some time in the 2060s before their representation was reduced to that awarded to them by the British people in the House of Commons in 2019. Maybe there is another aspect of your Lordships’ composition that might be examined.

Ministerial Code

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

I do agree with my noble friend. The Prime Minister, in denying one of the more absurd allegations, made the same point. If I am allowed a personal comment: I have the privilege of having my second vaccination tomorrow thanks to a modern miracle of science. We should all be profoundly grateful for that and the way it has been carried through in this country.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Mr Johnson seems to suffer from severe memory loss when it comes to recalling what he has said or written, not least with regard to the commitments he gave in his introduction to the code, when he vowed Ministers would all avoid

“actual or perceived conflicts of interest.”

Given his cavalier approach, is it any wonder that Ministers appear to regard its obligations as entirely voluntary? Can the Minister assure us that he has never infringed the requirements of the code?

[Lord True (Con)]

I am not sure who the “he” is in that question. If the “he” is me: I have always sought to adhere to the Ministerial Code. If the “he” is the Prime Minister: I have said I believe the Prime Minister conducts himself in accordance with all the principles of public life.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review and update the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are already conducting post-legislative scrutiny of Part 1 of the transparency of lobbying Act, which established the register. The post-legislative scrutiny was announced in 2020, and earlier this year Ministers met stakeholders to seek their views.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I recall that during the passage of the transparency Bill I quoted Mr Cameron as saying:

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”—[Official Report, 13/1/14; col. 29.]


Will the Government now implement the recommendations from the Public Relations and Communications Association to strengthen the Act? As the Minister will know, I and my colleagues secured a promise to include special advisers when the legislation had settled down and to examine the case for the inclusion of in-house lobbyists. Given the widespread public perception of Tory sleaze, will the Government now take action to ensure that the Act recognises the danger of privileged access for their prominent political supporters?

Gender-balanced Parliament and Male Primogeniture

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, hereditary peerages are not currently created. There are life Peers in your Lordships’ House and the life peerage is gender-blind. There are 223 female Peers currently, 28% of the Members of the House of Lords. The Government’s aspiration is, of course, to see more.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, do the Government accept that the simplest and quickest way to make progress in this direction, so far as this House is concerned, without complex legislation, would be to abolish the by-elections for hereditary Peers, since all the candidates are male? This temporary political fix of more than 20 years is well past its sell-by date. Will the Minister undertake to communicate to his colleagues the overwhelming view of this House that this should be included in the Government’s legislation for the coming Session?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it is not for me to comment on legislation in the forthcoming Session, but I would advise the noble Lord not to be a betting man.

People with Disabilities Standing for Elected Office

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Monday 22nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness’s point about skills. I do not wish to repeat the point I made about the difficulty of direct funding. After the 2019 election, we put out an invitation to tender, seeking an independent scheme administrator to help retrospectively, but unfortunately we did not receive a response.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, we all appreciate the efforts that the electoral administrators are making currently to assist disabled voters in the circumstances that we face. Since the Minister has acknowledged that the risk of fraud from large-scale postal voting is much greater than from cheating in polling stations, is he confident that all necessary precautions are in place for May’s elections? In particular, with the return of postal vote applications to the authorities, will he do everything possible to prevent political-party interference, as apparently happened with the Conservative association in Mr Gove’s constituency?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I will not pursue the noble Lord’s political allegations. This Government have a desire, which I hope all parties share, to avoid all fraud in elections. In the Covid situation, we need to take action, including late emergency proxies to enable all to cast their vote.

Covid-19: May Elections

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Thursday 25th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I cannot resist a quick personal tribute to the Lord Speaker. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, likewise: it was only 40 years ago that the Lord Speaker and I first worked together and I should like to express my sadness at the notice, and my appreciation of all that he has done for party, country and, indeed, the world, and we look forward to his independent career.

I can use a little bit of the time available because I can give the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, a positive Answer that we are changing proxy rules to enable those who need to self-isolate to request an emergency proxy vote at short notice, right up to 5 pm on polling day. This week we have laid a statutory instrument to make this change.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We all appreciate that the Government have been able to take advantage of expert advice since I tabled this Question and have published some good guidance and some very useful changes, especially addressing the problems faced by shielding and self-isolating electors in arranging proxy votes, a matter to which I drew attention. In the meantime, can he clear up the mystery of the scientific or health advice on which the Cabinet Office unilaterally declared that a leaflet delivered by a volunteer was a serious Covid health hazard but that one delivered by a commercial company was not?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, guidance has been issued on aspects of election campaigning and further guidance will be issued. Campaigning is an essential part of democracy. The current national lockdown restrictions in England say that one must not leave or be outside one’s home unnecessarily, and those restrictions do not support door-to-door campaigning or leafleting. However, I take advice from the noble Lord’s question and, as I have said, there will be further guidance on top of the guidance that has already been issued.

Political Parties: Expenditure Limits

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Monday 22nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I did reply to the Question, saying that we were undertaking a consultation and that a range of views were received from different parties. When the time comes to make an announcement, we will be able to provide more details to the House.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, given that the friend and family recipients of Covid crony contracts have already poured more than £8 million into Conservative Party coffers, does the Minister acknowledge that this huge increase in permissive spending will encourage more millionaires to think that they can buy government favours, including nomination to this House?

[Lord True (Con)]

No, my Lords. I strongly disagree; the noble Lord should think carefully before spreading such charges. If one looks at the record of donations that the Liberal Democrats have received, including those from convicted criminals, it is clear that charges of that kind should not be cast in that manner. The Government are reviewing the matter; local election limits were put up by the coalition Government, in which Liberal Democrats served, in 2014.

Constitution, Democracy and Human Rights Commission

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Thursday 14th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure about the proposition of a body. I think that, ultimately, authority to determine must reside in Parliament and in part in your Lordships’ House. I hope that we will have debates and discussion. I agree with my noble friend that a lot of change was ill thought through, but I assure noble Lords that the Government intend to proceed cautiously and with independent advice.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, does the Cabinet Office recognise that more piecemeal changes to the constitution and to electoral law, such as No. 10 taking back control of the Prorogation and Dissolution of Parliament, weakening controls on election spending and attacking the independence and integrity of the Electoral Commission, break the manifesto promise, which has been referred to, of a comprehensive constitution commission, set up to take evidence in the first 12 months of this Government?

[Lord True (Con)]

No, my Lords. I do not accept the characterisation of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I must say that the Liberal Democrat party has never been slow to come forward with radical changes to the constitution with very little consultation with others.

Ministerial Code

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether their Ministers are expected to abide by the standards of conduct in the discharge of their duties as set out in the Ministerial Code.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

Yes, they are, my Lords. The Ministerial Code sets out standards of behaviour that Ministers are expected to maintain. Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the code and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and to the public to whom they are ultimately accountable. The Prime Minister takes any allegations about misconduct very seriously and is the ultimate arbiter of conduct.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, on 2 November the Minister assured me and the House that the inquiry into bullying by the Home Secretary was wholly independent and free of all political and personal interference. Given that the Prime Minister prejudged that inquiry by expressing every confidence in her, promised to stick by her and then tried unsuccessfully to tone down the report before sitting on it for many months and rubbishing its recommendations, does the Minister now regret that he was misled? The Prime Minister promised that the Ministerial Code would outlaw bullying and harassment, but he has made the process a sham and the outcome shambolic. This is what Obama calls “truth decay”. Why should civil servants—or, indeed, anyone else—now trust the Prime Minister’s promises?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I infer from his remarks that the noble Lord did not prejudge the outcome of the inquiry. The Cabinet Office published the Sir Alex Allan’s findings on the Home Secretary’s conduct. The PM, as the arbiter of the code, considered all the findings carefully and, weighing up all the factors, the Prime Minister’s judgment is that the Ministerial Code was not breached.

Home Secretary: Allegations of Bullying

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Monday 2nd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to publish the report of their investigation into allegations of bullying of officials by the Home Secretary.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government take complaints relating to the Ministerial Code seriously. The Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Office to establish the facts in line with the code. To protect the interests of all involved, the Government do not comment on the specifics of this kind of ongoing process. The Prime Minister will make any decision on the matter public once the process has concluded.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, justice delayed is justice denied. Surely for civil servants in the Home Office, past and present, this long delay of eight months is intolerable. In accord with natural justice, can the Minister now confirm that no one with a personal or political interest will have had any involvement whatever in the independent investigation into the behaviour of the Home Secretary, the report or the timing of its publication, and that that will clearly rule out any involvement by the Prime Minister?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the process is independent, but I can only repeat that, to protect the interests of all involved, the Government do not comment on the specifics of this kind of ongoing process. I repeat that the Prime Minister will make any decision on the matter public once the process has concluded.

Civil Servants: Public Procurement

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Thursday 29th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, in the light of the report from the Good Law Project on procurement referred to by my noble friend Lord Scriven and the noble Baroness just now, can the Minister confirm that there is comparable transparency where the personal and political interests of Ministers and special advisers are in question? I cite the specific example of the £276 million PPE contracts, to which I have drawn Ministers’ attention.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, Ministers are bound by the Ministerial Code and civil servants are bound by the Civil Service Management Code, from which I have quoted. Special advisers are also required to conduct themselves in accordance with the code of conduct for special advisers and the Civil Service Code.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this short debate. Its brevity does not detract in any way from the importance of the points put forward. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken. I have discovered that, as far as jam and cream are concerned, I am a Cornish man, rather than Devonian—not that I am allowed to eat such things any more; you can ask my wife about that.

I do not want to belittle the thing, but the one thing I would demur about is the suggestion that this Government do not care or have a concern about community. This Government have a profound concern for community, and every fibre of my being, in the life I have led in local government, reinforces that sense within me. I totally understand the passion, commitment and sense behind the amendment to protect constituencies in Cornwall.

I will not repeat the arguments that I made in Committee. There is a problem, and there is a reason why, in principle, it would potentially be difficult, in that other communities might argue and ask why they had not had the same protection. I mentioned Suffolk and Norfolk. I do not equate Cornwall with any other place—Cornwall is special—but, on the other hand, I remember a storm arising in a field in East Anglia when I was a very small boy, and my grandmother, who came from a long line of Lowestoft fisherfolk, as we call them these days, took my hand in hers and said, “Don’t worry, a storm can never cross the water,” by which she meant the River Waveney. There are places where boundaries are felt to be important. I believe community arises and is not measured against other people but within ourselves, within place and a range of things that make up who we are.

I understand where this amendment is coming from, and I understand the argument from community. I hope and expect that the Boundary Commission will recognise, with the latitude it has, the importance of community—including the sense of being Cornish. The Government are, however, committed to constituencies as equally sized as possible, and that aspect of the protection of constituencies, apart from with the islands, is held to be important.

The Government certainly understand the point. My noble friend Lord Bourne was manifest in this when he was a Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was kind enough to say so, quite rightly. The Government recognise the importance of Cornwall and being Cornish. Indeed, last year we provided £200,000 of financial support, I believe, to fund a range of Cornish language projects, as well as work to tackle barriers to systematic education provision around the Cornish language. Although I cannot accept this amendment, I assure the House that the distinctive nature of Cornwall is understood. I am reinforced in feeling able to advise the House that we do not need this amendment because, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, our expectation is exactly his expectation: we do not expect, given the 600 constituencies and the tolerance suggested, that there should be a case or a need for the new constituencies to cross the Tamar. It appears likely that they will remain within those bounds and, if I am allowed to express a personal view from the Dispatch Box, I hope that they will. I am sure that will be shared by many in the Government.

I respect the views expressed here, and I understand them, but I do not believe, given the potential knock-on effects, such as questions as to why other communities and places are not recognised, that we should put it in statute. I hope that, having heard those assurances— and I repeat the sense that the Government are well aware of the importance of Cornishness and Cornish sentiment—that the noble Lord, who has spoken so ably on behalf of that great county, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all Members who contributed to this short debate, particularly the Minister—and I will come back to him in a moment. In the meantime, I hope that all Members of your Lordships’ House recognise that the vote we undertook, less than an hour ago, to extend the tolerance either side of the quota norm to 7.5% actually makes it much easier for us to recognise Cornwall as a separate entity. That room for manoeuvre will, I think, as the Minister hinted just now, mean that there will not be another threat of a “Devon wall” seat. However, I do not take anything for granted: it might be that we will not have, when the Bill finally gets Royal Assent, that degree of flexibility. I just hope that we do. On the previous proposal for a seat that would cross the Tamar—the so-called “Devon wall” threat—I am sorry to say that a number of Conservatives, locally as well as nationally, just accepted it, which was very regrettable. We should have had unanimity across the parties, as we now have in Cornwall Council, as is represented by the letter it sent to us all.

The vote that took place less than an hour ago has made the situation simpler, because it is very unlikely that that threat to the boundary will happen again, as, indeed, the Minister has now accepted. I know that some would want to try to make sure that the removal of that threat became permanent. However, I am conscious, as someone who is keen to maintain the law and the constitution, that no Parliament can absolutely commit a successor, any more than a Government can. To pass an amendment at this stage might not be appropriate for the present review we are discussing and is unlikely to be necessary for a future review. Of course, that might not be a solid proposal if we get some fallback from our excellent vote of just a few minutes ago—but I think we can now be reasonably confident that there will not be another “Devon wall” seat in the immediate future.

I take seriously what the Minister has said. He said in terms, “Cornwall is special”. I have underlined that and write it in heavy type. I know he feels strongly about the boundary between Suffolk and Norfolk, which I happen also to know, but it is nothing like as firmly and clearly defined and delineated on the map of Great Britain as is the boundary between England and Cornwall. But I take seriously and respect what he has said. We all want to respect communities better and, par excellence, the community, history, integrity and identity of Cornwall is special. In the meantime, I am happy to beg to withdraw my amendment.

House of Lords: Number of Members

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, every Member of your Lordships’ House has the right to express a personal opinion, and long may we do so. However, it is important, as my noble friend says, that the House reflects on the risk of becoming out of step with public opinion on this great question.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that, following the huge majority for the 2012 House of Lords Reform Bill which Sir George Young, as he then was, secured at Second Reading, this House could by now be well on the way to being a 450-strong senate with a democratic mandate? Further, will he acknowledge that it was only the silly party games played by the then Labour leadership with reactionary Tory Back-Benchers that stopped that Bill in its tracks?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has rather upset our colleagues on the Labour Benches. Many histories of that period could be written. The fact is that legislation was presented and, as I said in an earlier answer, it did not find favour at the time.

Intelligence and Security Committee: Russia Report

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, in the final 72 hours before the EU referendum in June 2016 there was extensive, disguised, unregulated and targeted digital campaign messaging. Ministers ignored this. Why? This occurred again last year, with shadowy Brexit-supporting groups spending hundreds of thousands of pounds and then disappearing. Ministers ignored this. Why? Given the detailed recommendations of the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner more than a year ago, and now of both Commons and Lords Select Committees, that those responsible and paying for such political digital messages must be made to identify themselves, why have Ministers dragged their feet?

[Lord True]

My Lords, Ministers have not dragged their feet, and issues of electoral integrity are very much under consideration, as the noble Lord knows. Action will be taken in the course of this Parliament. On his central question, we have seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU referendum.

House of Lords: Relocation

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

I am not going to interpose my body between Birmingham and York. The right reverend Prelate is correct that outreach is important. To give an example, I had the honour of chairing your Lordships’ Select Committee on Intergenerational Fairness and Provision; I took evidence in Doncaster, which was illuminating and helpful. The broader context of this debate and discussion, in so far as it has started, is that the Government intend to take parts of the central Civil Service out of London. We intend to bring the process of government closer to the people. We in this House should not shut ourselves away from considering how we can do that. The right reverend Prelate referred to a very good ongoing practice.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, given the various attempts by No. 10 to emasculate the scrutiny work of your Lordships’ House, can we take it that this proposal to banish us to York is simply a threat to cut off the House from MPs, Ministers, Cabinet, civil servants and the rest, and to weaken our constitutional role? Would it not be much less disruptive to send the whole Cabinet Office to York? That would not need a lengthy parliamentary process and would, in the words of the Minister, bring government closer to the public. Has the Leader of the House made any representations on this to Messrs Johnson, Gove and Cummings?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I have put on record what my right honourable friend Michael Gove said. The noble Lord speaks from outside this Chamber, which is perfectly reasonable. In this current emergency, your Lordships have been scattered to the four corners of the kingdom. There has been no parallel since 1665 when the House took itself to Oxford to avoid the plague. Speaking as a Minister, I do not feel either today or on other occasions that the intense and proper scrutiny from your Lordships has been weakened. I reject any contention that this Government want at any time to weaken parliamentary scrutiny.

Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Monday 15th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True [V]]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. On the details, I must ask again for the House’s patience. She is quite right to say that the Act was born in unusual circumstances: it was part of a doubleton with plans for proportional representation, which the Liberal Democrat party hoped at the time would enable it to hold the ring in Parliament and change horses whenever it wished.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, if enabling the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament at a time to suit his or her party is put on the statute book, it will start to codify the royal prerogative. Is that what the Government intend?

[Lord True [V]]

My Lords, again, the noble Lord tempts me to go ahead of where we are now. I do not agree with the idea advanced by a number of noble Lords that, axiomatically, the Prime Minister’s power to dissolve works in that Prime Minister’s interest; for example, it did not do so for Mr Heath in February 1974.

House of Lords: Membership

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Tuesday 5th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, I have stated on the record the position of the Government—I am sure that any number of Ministers could do the same—and I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will be following our proceedings. The current total priority and focus of this Government is to deal with the Covid-19 emergency. I assure the noble Baroness that, were such an idea ever to be suggested, it would be given the very lowest priority.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, is it not obvious that somebody in No. 10 is playing party games with the constitutional role and responsibility of Members of your Lordships’ House, as set out in our Writ of Summons from Her Majesty the Queen? Following the answer that was given just now, can we be assured that the Leader of the House will start leading for the House and will stand up to No. 10? Will the Minister confirm that any changes of this sort will follow the normal process of scrutiny, debate and votes in your Lordships’ House?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I certainly agree with the point on scrutiny. The Government have made it very clear that they do not consider piecemeal reform of this House to be sensible. However, I repeat that there is no substance in this story. I am not sure whether it was a case of the ill informed meeting the inventive or perhaps one or the other, but I repeat that it is not government policy.

House of Lords: Membership

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Tuesday 21st April 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

I think we can take it that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, is not there, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Tyler.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, this requires a simple yes or no. For clarity, can the Minister tell us whether the present Prime Minister has committed himself to the same self-restraint as of his predecessor in relation to the Burns committee recommendations?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I do not usually respond when a pistol is put to my head, but I have already told the House that some new Members are essential, always, to keep the expertise and outlook of the House fresh.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 7th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, that would be an argument for reform and change of the House. I do not do identity politics, I am afraid. I regard every member of our society, whatever race or gender, as equal and deserving equal respect. This House is a deposit of historical tradition. It is as it is. The composition of this House—it has become largely a nominated House—is the result of the choice of party-political leaders in this country. Let us not have all this flim-flam about representation. If we want representation, let us have election. So far as the composition of this House is concerned, with primary life Peers, nominated people who get attention, lucky folk who get a selector of one—the Prime Minister or the party leader of the day—who says, “Go there”, the noble Baroness’s strictures should be addressed not to this House, but to the leaders of the political parties, including the Liberal Democrats, who have sent here the people who are here. That is a matter we can debate further when we come back to it, but it is entirely irrelevant to this Bill, which will do nothing—

[Lord Tyler]

It is also totally irrelevant to the amendment to which the noble Lord is supposed to be speaking.

[Lord True]

I gave notice out of courtesy. I came here to speak to this amendment; out of courtesy to the Liberal Democrats, when I discovered that it was listed as “already debated”—I have explained my position—I said that I would not speak to the amendment but that I would bring it back on Report. Out of courtesy to the Liberal Democrats, having been asked a question from the noble Lord’s noble friend, I gave an answer. I would like to proceed to the amendment before the House, but we will return to this matter.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Friday 23rd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

I was not going to go down that track but the noble Lord is an old friend and I am delighted to dispose of that myth too. My noble friends in this House did not support the deal that was referred to. We were not in that particular discussion. We do not support the deal that was done but we have been unique in being consistent in supporting the case for reform. We supported the case for the 2012 Bill, which gained a majority in the House of Commons of 338—the biggest majority of that type for a big Bill. There was a majority on the Conservative Benches, a majority on the Labour Benches, and unanimity among the Liberal Democrats. I stand four-square behind the reform of your Lordships’ House but until that happens, just as we have to live with these unfortunate facts of life, we have to live with those facts of life too.

[Lord True (Con)]

I was a member of the official group that was tasked to negotiate the details of the arrangement entered into by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, and Lord Cranborne, and there were Liberal Democrat representatives. I remember it well, so it is not actually true that the Liberal Democrats did not assent. The college system that noble Lords should be elected only by members of their party was insisted on by both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, for the understandable reason at the time that they did not trust that the whole House would preserve the balance between the parties. As has happened since, because of the Carter convention, that has been respected. But it is simply not true that the Liberal Democrats were not there at the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

I will not take further interventions. There are serious points to be made against the Bill and some of those that I have addressed remain unresolved.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, very briefly, I am wholly opposed to this whole group of amendments for the very important reason given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern: these are wrecking amendments. If they were going to be pursued appropriately in your Lordships’ House, they should have been raised at Second Reading as an opportunity to vote against the Bill then. I am particularly opposed to Amendment 59, which has been given so much emphasis in the last few minutes and reads:

“Whereas it is no longer intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular basis”.


That is a subjective supposition. It may be true; I do not know whether it is true. What sort of timescale is envisaged? It is not a fact and, therefore, for us to put it into the Bill would be absurd.

If I may take this opportunity, the first person who I think would have reacted to that particular suggestion would be our former colleague Lord Richard. I served with him in a number of capacities but, in particular, through a whole year on the Joint Committee on the then draft Bill brought forward by the coalition. He would not have accepted that as a statement of fact, because it is not a statement of fact. It is a supposition. I therefore hope we will dispose of this whole group of amendments and, in particular, dispose absolutely clearly and without any doubt of Amendment 59, if only to make sure that Lord Richard’s view on this issue remains with us. He was always clear and consistent and argued his case with such conviction; we should at least respect that in this case.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord Tyler

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 1st March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have a slightly different point to make. I do not want to repeat what I said to your Lordships on the first day of Committee but perhaps I may again read the Long Title of this legislation. It is a Bill to:

“Confer power on the Prime Minister to notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU”,


and that is followed by one clause.

We have had a most entertaining disquisition and a whole series of teach-ins on various aspects of what the nation will be debating over the next year, including tonight from some extremely eminent lawyers and diplomats. It is clear to me as the Bill advances that the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Pannick and Lord Kerr, are emerging as the Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus and St Bonaventure of the details of this argument—the scholastic philosophers of what is before us. Unfortunately for the scholastic philosophers, the Christian communities involved did not accept that they had a monopoly of wisdom, because brilliance has to be tempered by practicality and practical wisdom. The problem that Parliament in its entirety has to wrestle with is how we respond to a vote by the British people with a majority of one and a quarter million to leave the European Union. That will exercise us for some time, but I do not think this is the time for scholastic argument. I take the same view on this amendment as on many others: it is an unnecessary obstruction—not in time or in practice, but we should focus on the purpose of this Bill.

I make a further point, which we should wrestle with over the next few months with some care. A great deal has been said about parliamentary sovereignty. I agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lord Howard and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on subsection (4). But there is a deeper difficulty in this talk—and it is good talk; I am a devout parliamentarian—about parliamentary final say. In our parliamentary system there are two Houses. There is a House of Commons, which is elected and which can ultimately enforce its will, if need be through the Parliament Act—as is envisaged in one of these amendments—and there is another House, your Lordships’ House, which is unelected.

Today we established a new fact. We had a vote. In that vote, which is the second highest vote ever recorded in the House of Lords, 614 Peers voted. The result was, I believe, 356 to 258, or it might have been the other way around—

[Lord Tyler]

It was the other way around.

[Lord True]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. So it was the other way around—358 to 256—which strengthens my argument. There is—if those 358 care to unite again and again—an insurmountable wall in your Lordships’ House, an unelected House, against the will of the other place, Her Majesty’s Government. I will not use the phrase “the will of the people”—we are acting on the instructions of the people, but I know it offends some. There is an insurmountable wall. It is inconceivable that the Government could form enough people in this place to overcome it. So when I read these amendments, which, effectively, have said that nothing can proceed and nothing can be terminated without the consent of your Lordships’ House, I see them as effectively giving your Lordships’ House—an unelected House, with a force that the world out there sees today—a veto on the procedure to take this forward. I give way to the noble Lord—

[Lord True]

It may be that the noble Lord has more access to my right honourable friend than I do. My right honourable friend is perfectly capable of forming a judgment and I have no doubt we will hear from my noble friend on the Front Bench. I do not resile for a moment from the advice that I am giving. I would give that advice to my right honourable friend as well. But it would be a strange place to put this country, at this time, on this Bill, at this stage of these proceedings, if we pass legislation that effectively gives a veto to a House that has voted with 358 Members against the request of the Front Bench to allow this Bill to proceed unamended as the House of Commons did. This is a major issue that needs to be addressed and it is one to which I hope the country and this Parliament will turn its mind.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I have now served in Parliament for over 25 years—roughly half that time in each House. I do not think the noble Lord who has just spoken has had experience of the House of Commons.

I want to address two insidious arguments. One argument—which we have heard often over recent days and the noble Lord has repeated it—is that somehow, the House of Lords should not intervene because the House of Commons has already spoken. If we take that argument to its extremity, there is no point in your Lordships’ House. It is simply giving ammunition to those, who are now increasing in number, who want a unicameral Parliament, who want to abolish this House, not just to reform it or to make it an elected Senate, as I do. I am very firmly in favour of a bicameral Parliament, as are my noble friends on these Benches, but there are now more people, many more people, who wish to abolish this House than want it to retain its present, appointed basis. That is very dangerous. If the noble Lord, Lord True, wants to persuade your Lordships’ House that we do not have a status on an issue as important as this, that we do not have a perfect right to tell the other place to think again, then I do not agree with him. It was evident from that very considerable vote on the earlier amendment that that is not the majority view in your Lordships’ House.

The other insidious argument which I think is really dangerous is to say, as many Members of your Lordships’ House seem to be saying, “Yes, we are very keen on the sovereignty of Parliament, but we are not prepared to reiterate that point now”. If not now, when? The Minister has on several occasions—he is persistent and sometimes persuasive—made a good point about some of the amendments that have come before your Lordships’ House about the process of negotiation; there will be other opportunities. There will not be another opportunity to set out a simple and sensible process within Parliament —both Houses—for the way we decide the outcome of the negotiations.

I was very impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. He and I used to have discussions in the other place; I used to have to try to shadow him. He and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, are the true Thatcherites, because they helped the great architect of the single market to make real sense for Britain of the single market, as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who was here earlier. But I do not think that we can really wait for the end of the process to decide how Parliament is going to take the process. That is why I thought the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was so helpful. If the Government cannot, between now and Report, find a way of setting before our House and, in due course, the other place, a process that we can all agree is one that defends the sovereignty of Parliament, defends our rights, in both Houses, to take these important decisions, then the Government are seriously at fault and may well find themselves losing a vote in your Lordships’ House, albeit perhaps not with the same majority as on Amendment 9B.

This is an extremely important moment, not just for the future of our country—of course it is—but for the future of our Parliament. If we effectively tie one hand behind our back, in either House or both Houses collectively, then we are doing a great disservice to the whole principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is going to follow me but he is the ideal person to spell out the importance of defending Parliament against an elective dictatorship. It is clear from the attendance at this late hour, nearly 10.45 pm, that many in this Committee share these concerns about how we are approaching this issue. We have not got it right yet. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made a very valid point about the way these amendments have come forward. It is the Government’s responsibility to find a better solution to what I think we all agree is a very serious problem.